To my old question regarding the absence of the tragic form in the Hebrew Bible—I’m thinking of the mise à plat of the injustices and cruelties perpetrated in the Davidic royal house—, one answer is that the epic genre was abandoned by the Judean writers of the sixth and fifth centuries because its purpose was to sing heroes and kings (preferably winning ones). By the time the writer(s) of the books of Samuel and Kings were putting those books together as we have them, perhaps in competition with the authors of the books of Chronicles, where were the heroes and kings to be sung? Long gone. Add to this internal reason the fact and cruel reminder that the Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian religious and political structures were most recognizable by their use of the epic genre, it was so necessary to them, as it had been to the little Israelite, Judaean and neighboring Aramaean kingdoms as long as they lived the life of kingdoms, that one of these, badly beaten (and repeatedly so), when it set about to recast its own stories about the world, couldn’t sing them, not without kings, without victories, without much of a pantheon.

The re-imagining and re-writing of Hebrew mythology implied a critical evaluation of divine forces and led to a giving up or relinquishing of the incantatory mode, at least in the recounting of human deeds. [Contra: as for the only king left in the new scheme of things, namely the dethroned divinity, think of Psalms, including the psalms of ascent especially, or Psalm 51 on David. In what way are they different?] This abandonment of the epic form in the telling of the origins of the world, did it not lead to—or: wasn’t it part of—a broader impossibility, namely the embellishment of the kind of human actions and stories found in classical tragedy? In contradistinction, see Aristotle’s commendation, regarding the need and appropriatedness of making things more beautiful, heroic, and more appealing than they could be or have been:

Since tragedy is a representation of men better than ourselves we must copy the good portrait-painters who, while rendering the distinctive form and making a likeness, yet paint people better than they are. It is the same with the poet. (Poetics 1448b.25 and especially 1454b.8–14, translation by Hamilton Fyfe, LCL)

Nobility, courage, cowardice, treason, pusillanimity, etc… were not the only driving forces for the author(s) of the book of Genesis or Kings, however, because they could not be.